• 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
    1·
    2 days ago

    Art is largely dependent on the viewer. If you come across a curiously artificial, but aesthetically pleasing, pile of rocks in the forest, is it art if it was created by nature? Is Half Dome art?

    Personally, there’s a difference to me whether an animal created something for aesthetic reasons, vs the wind just jumbling branches into a randomly pleasing arrangement. Flowers are not “art.” They’re pretty, but not art. A human could make a chair to sit in, utterly uniting aesthetics, and although it might be pleasing to the eye, it’s not art.

    In my definition, the intention of the creator matters, and is a part of what defines art.

    • Monstrosity@lemm.ee
      13·
      2 days ago

      Great, but then is AI art generated by a human not entirely intention? Would that not endear you more towards it?

      The piece OP posted is a great example of art that is entirely conceptual, which seems to me the best use case for AI art.

      • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
        1·
        1 day ago

        So, first: I’m not the person you originally started arguing with; I have no objection to AI art, except vaguely in that is the worst kind of commercial plagiarism designed to steal other people’s work and turn it into profits. It’s like pirating music, but then selling CDs of the copy. Obviously much worse.

        But that’s only a vague objection because I’m no kind of artist. I support them and their fight, but abstractly as it doesn’t affect me.

        I like a lot of the AI gen stuff. Very pretty, visuals catered to your whims, on demand. Turn that mind’s eye vision of the Dark Tower into a real image, despite having no artistic skill! But I don’t respect it. I don’t think it’s “Art”, anymore than a random Mandelbrot is “Art.” Take that Mandelbrot and paint it using pointillism, and that would be Art.

        When AGI comes along, and has an inner world and an imagination, then I’ll start thinking of it as Art.